Quote from: Christopher Brady;908249The 'Tactics' that the DM allows is part of this agreement, because the base rules assumes that you ARE using tactics to keep the magic user safe, that roll to hit back in the AD&D's 1 minute round was a lucky shot, an opening, or otherwise a chance to hit, despite the player's best plans.  But if the DM allows you to prevent the monsters from attacking the wizard, they're agreeing to allow you to keep the wizards/casters safe above and beyond what the system allows.

So, the game does not allow players to think and exercise their imaginations and creativity? Any attempt at combat positioning is beyond what the rules allow?  Just roll to hit and that's it for combat?  You must have had a different copy of the rules than we did.  The version we had included rules for how many opponents of various sizes could attack each other, notes on tactics and strategy, etc. Notes on tactics have been part of the game from the beginning.

If your group chose to ignore them, well, you have only yourselves to blame for that. The rules not only support, but reward using proper tactics, and assume that players will do so.

Quote from: Dave R;907714So I'll make a claim, though it applies more to point-buy and skill based systems than well designed class systems:  at a meta-game level, niche protection is just plain bad for games.  It's bad GMing if the GM is the one encouraging, and it's bad play if it's players seeking it out.  For games that differentiate them, by all means distinguish characters with different weapon skills or fighting styles, different technical skills, and different social skills, but it's far better to spread those out across the group than stack them on one character.

Anyway...  Am I wrong, and there's a counter-argument I'm not seeing?  Or is this not even news to anyone here, and I've just been unlucky in some of my face to face groups?

I don't think you're entirely wrong. I feel this is yet another thing that should be obvious but is obscured by the piss-poor accepted lexicon of game theory. Allow me to suggest, there is no such thing as niche protection. There is archetype enforcement--which I guess is similar to what you term niche protection on the meta level. And then there is niche specialization.

The reason there's no such thing as niche protection is because a niche isn't something that's necessarily well-defined. In real life, a niche is something you kind of fall into. And it's the same way in the game, because even as you're playing a game of decision-making and choice, real world concepts like opportunity cost are present. Regardless of your group. Regardless of the RPG. Rigidly defined classes? Now those are examples of Archetype Enforcement. Niche specialization is something different. An example I like to use, however dated, is effective at illustrating the point. Examine the old-school D&D Joe the fighter vs Fred the fighter problem. I use an extreme example that magnifies the problem, Joe and Fred have exact identical stats, only Joe the fighter rolled 10 hit points for first level while Fred rolled 1.

Here's the thing. With Joe's 10 hit points, he's kind of too valuable as a "meat shield" to use as anything other than a front-line fighter. Even though Fred is no better at ranged fighting than Joe, Fred does thus have a comparative advantage over Joe when it comes to archery. Because the opportunity cost of forgoing the alternative of Fred as a front-line fighter is no great loss. Whereas the opportunity cost of Joe being a back-line archer is a much bigger loss. So I would anticipate in actual play, Fred would fall into the niche of archer, even though the game system hasn't provided an archer archetype.

So that's falling into a niche. It happens organically. Now where niche specialization comes in is if you use the AD&D weapon proficiency system to then allow Fred to specialize in the niche he's acquired, whereas Joe specializes in the niche he's acquired. As long as the game system has a way you can do this, it supports niche specialization. And whereas initially Fred was inferior to Joe in every way and only had a comparative advantage over Joe, through niche specialization, over time, the two fighters become like apples and oranges. You can't say in an objective sense which is superior to another.

Quote from: DavetheLost;908363You must have had a different copy of the rules than we did.

He didn't have a copy of the rules, didn't read them, and didn't play them.  Which of course doesn't stop him from telling everyone else how they were really playing.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;908361If we are using realism [...] then those underground stone corridors should have vaulted ceilings, or else they'd collapse.

I pointed out the breathable air and sanitation logistics issues earlier.  I find it amusing that people are niggling over arcs and parabolas and the viscosity and flammability of the totally anachronistic, maaaan lamp oil yet the notion that there are all these dungeons with perfectly dressed rectilinear 10' dressed flagstone corridors with no air or sump pumps passes without comment.

Pace Ravenswing's nuclear waste example, everybody has blind spots.  We are Not at Home to Mr. Mining Engineering today.

Quote from: daniel_ream;908375I pointed out the breathable air and sanitation logistics issues earlier.  I find it amusing that people are niggling over arcs and parabolas and the viscosity and flammability of the totally anachronistic, maaaan lamp oil yet the notion that there are all these dungeons with perfectly dressed rectilinear 10' dressed flagstone corridors with no air or sump pumps passes without comment.

Pace Ravenswing's nuclear waste example, everybody has blind spots.  We are Not at Home to Mr. Mining Engineering today.

Some of us told Mr. Mining Engineering to clear off years ago.  Mr. What Makes The Game Play The Way I Like is quite at home, thank you.

By the bye, my pot of flaming oil does 1d6 damage, just like any other weapon.

Quote from: DavetheLost;908363If your group chose to ignore them, well, you have only yourselves to blame for that.

99 44/100 % of ALL the bitching I've ever seen or heard about OD&D comes from people ignoring rules and then bitching about the game.  Another of my personal favorites is people who ignore morale and then complain combat is a bloodbath, especially when combined with people who throw out the "XP for gold" rule because it's "unrealistic", fail to adjust XP for monsters to compensate, and then bitch about how long it takes to level up.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;908361If we are using realism (which the 'is D&D oil like kerosene or like fish/olive-oil?' tangent indicates, there is some call for).

Not so much "realism" as "not overexaggerating."  Many people treat the D&D "flask of oil" like a gas tank explosion in an action movie (which, by the way, is NOT what a gas tank on a real car exploding looks like, and yes, I've seen it).

Quote from: DavetheLost;908363So, the game does not allow players to think and exercise their imaginations and creativity? Any attempt at combat positioning is beyond what the rules allow?  Just roll to hit and that's it for combat?  You must have had a different copy of the rules than we did.  The version we had included rules for how many opponents of various sizes could attack each other, notes on tactics and strategy, etc. Notes on tactics have been part of the game from the beginning.

If your group chose to ignore them, well, you have only yourselves to blame for that. The rules not only support, but reward using proper tactics, and assume that players will do so.

Quote from: CRKrueger;908372He didn't have a copy of the rules, didn't read them, and didn't play them.  Which of course doesn't stop him from telling everyone else how they were really playing.

Hey, hey, now. He said he played late 1e, or at least used the Wilderness Survival Guide. He just didn't have the DMG.

Quote from: Omega;9083421: Keep in mind that D&D flasks of oil arent molotovs. All tossing the flask does is coat the target, or those in the splash range, in some sort of oil thats sufficiently flammabe a torch can set off but a candle apparently cant.

And "splash range" assumes you are splashing those in a rough circle around the target. At no point in any version of the rules does it say that a flask of oil holds infinite amounts of ethereal oil that drenches those in the immediate vicinity, then passes through them as if they weren't an obstacle to thoroughly drench those standing behind them.

Quote from: Omega;9083422: We assumed lamp oil and flasks of oil were two seperate things.

When I first started playing, we didn't treat them as separate, especially since what we knew about flammable oil came from '70s TV and movies. Much later, I learned not only that oil wasn't as easy to light as Hollywood portrays it, but most of the lanterns in medieval times wouldn't even be oil lanterns. They're candle lanterns. At least some versions of the rules distinguish between the bullseye lantern, which uses oil, and the cheaper lantern, which uses candles.

And interestingly, as the rules got more specific about how throwing flasks of oil works, they also reduced the damage done. Even The Fantasy Trip, which has literal molotovs, has them doing much less damage than a fireball. This, combined with Chris's marvelous rules which become more specific or more abstract depending on which is more beneficial, reminds me that there's maybe another kind of niche protection: protecting the GM's niche as the embodiment of the world. There's an attitude, not only among some GMs, but also some versions of the rules, which treat players and player creativity as a hostile attack on the GM's pristine world. The rules get more realistic and more precise in order to protect the precious goblins from being overwhelmed by smart players. And when the idea of GM as keeper of the plot shows up, you get rules fretting about players using magic to short circuit the plot.

Quote from: Omega;9083421: Keep in mind that D&D flasks of oil arent molotovs.

Oh sure, twas one of my points way back. The assumption we made was that a flask of oil was not a huge amount, say a pint or so and not a gallon. Usually we used them to create a barrier to pursuit (pour or smash 2-3 on the floor, toss torch, and run away) or as a movement obstacle (slippery when oiled).

Quote2: We assumed lamp oil and flasks of oil were two seperate things.

I always assumed they were the same thing. In part based on medieval tech either not including kerosene and naptha or considering it some rare, foreign, and expensive thing a la Greek Fire, in part based on there being only one entry in the equipment list and lanterns needing refills on long dungeon explorations we assumed it was a refill not a special military item.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;908249. . . above and beyond what the system allows.

The system allows a lot, but it also expects you to know what the fuck you're doing.

By wargamers, for wargamers.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;908376By the bye, my pot of flaming oil does 1d6 damage, just like any other weapon.

I mostly do the same, although I think I'll make it half that damage is immediate, the rest is done 1 point per round thereafter. Maybe roll another d6 if the victim is wearing something flammable, but again, the additional d6 is done at a rate of 1 point per round. So, immediate steps to put out the fire might save you a lot of damage.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;90837999 44/100 % of ALL the bitching I've ever seen or heard about OD&D comes from people ignoring rules and then bitching about the game.  Another of my personal favorites is people who ignore morale and then complain combat is a bloodbath, especially when combined with people who throw out the "XP for gold" rule because it's "unrealistic", fail to adjust XP for monsters to compensate, and then bitch about how long it takes to level up.

I wrote a rant once about how you can change the rules, but then you are not allowed to complain about the way the game works afterwards. You get what you paid for.

Quote from: David Johansen;908344...the world was changing far faster than anyone had imagined.

That's actually clever. It would make a fun satire of LotR. Perhaps a new book...

Back Again, Gone Again, and What Me and Merry Did After, by P. Took.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;908389The system allows a lot, but it also expects you to know what the fuck you're doing.

Nice to see you posting, but it's a bit of a tease to link to your blog without providing us with a new blog update.

Hint. Hint.

Quote from: Omega;908179Given enough encounters that are lived through an animal will pick up on things like guns/weapons being pointed at them, or that armour = I need a can opener to eat this thing.

Backpacking trip in the Sierra Nevada, Cottonwood Lakes trailhead to Siberian Outpost. Spent the first night at Chicken Springs Lake, a pretty heavily visited site. Not someplace I would normally camp due to crowds, but it was very late in the season so only two other people there - easy to find some privacy.

Like most smart Sierra packers, I carry a bear canister for my food. As I'm setting up camp for the night, a golden-mantled ground squirrel appears and starts making a fucking nuisance of itself. A couple of times I catch him gnawing on top of the bear can - I still have tooth marks on it today from that little shit. I keep shooing him away but he just won't give up. Finally it's time for me to make dinner so I sit down on a rock and prepare to open the can - and this little fucker literally jumps on my back. I can feel his gawddamn little rodent claws through my shirt. I chased him off again, got my food going, and for the most part he stayed away after that.

Thinking about it during dinner, I understood this was learned behavior. That rat-sonofabitch had figured out, from scores of careless, clueless packers before me, that containers would be left open and by surprising someone as they opened the container he might get them to spill the contents.

A fucking rat, with a little fucking rat-brain, figured this out.

Where getting to food is concerned, tree rats are smart. Very smart.

Quote from: Bren;908398Where getting to food is concerned, tree rats are smart. Very smart.

That's very good observation.